> The inability to generate IP reputation smaller than a /24 is inherent to the way internet routing works.
Nonsense. SMTP is not internet routing, and there is no reason at all why some "reputation" system should be constrained by the same /24 limit that the global routing table ended up with.
I find it telling that these "reputation" outfits tend to serve up this sort of poor excuse to justify their businesses; whereas they're often plain old protection rackets. Like the one described in the article clearly is. They take money to solve the problem they created!
I think you're thinking domain based email reputation lists but commenting on the IP reputation conversation while also conflating what Abusix is doing in this comment chain with what UCEPROTECT is doing in the post and forming a conclusion from hand picked pieces of the conglomerate. For the Abusix portion related to this thread check out their response here as it goes into much better detail with what I originally described https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30227886 (note: I'm unaffiliated, I work for a generic network VAR and we don't even sell their service for email).
These domain based lists are also a thing but you need to have a pretty sizable volume to become trusted in those lists as anyone can register a domain in seconds, none of the above will have gained trust on them.
The whitelist payment option for arbitrary hosts (which Abusix doesn't offer) is a workaround to create a publicly registered identity with some stake to tie the reputation to. I mean it can be other things to, scammy rackets exist too, but you can't just claim it's a poor excuse without offering a better answer that solves the same problem.
Speaking of spammers are the ones that created the problem because people started using individual network block lists before companies started aggregating and mediating them. You're welcome to make your own community replacement solution but the problem is the replacement has to be reliable enough other mail administrators want to use it not just nice for the occasional legitimate guy that wants to run email out of his house and be trusted by default. Also it's a lot of work to mediate.
Nonsense. SMTP is not internet routing, and there is no reason at all why some "reputation" system should be constrained by the same /24 limit that the global routing table ended up with.
I find it telling that these "reputation" outfits tend to serve up this sort of poor excuse to justify their businesses; whereas they're often plain old protection rackets. Like the one described in the article clearly is. They take money to solve the problem they created!